Pappas v. City of New York

Background

The plaintiffs are sergeants and lieutenants with the New York Police Department who are assigned police dogs owned by the City of New York and are considered dog handlers. They alleged that the City failed to pay them overtime for time spent caring for their assigned dogs beyond 171 hours in a 28-day period. The Fourth Amended Complaint asserted one claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing minimum wages and overtime pay.

The court had previously dismissed an earlier complaint without prejudice, explaining that law-enforcement employees had to allege facts—not merely conclusions—showing that they worked more than 171 hours in a 28-day period without receiving overtime pay for the excess hours. The Fourth Amended Complaint removed some allegations based on information and belief, but the court found that it still did not adequately show that the claimed dog-care hours were unpaid overtime.

Court’s analysis

The Fourth Amended Complaint alleged that Sergeant Jezsek worked with his assigned dog for two hours on non-work days and 1.5 hours on work days. It also alleged that he was paid overtime when officially assigned to work more than 171 hours. The court concluded that the allegations did not establish that the dog-care hours were uncompensated overtime.

The plaintiffs’ proposed Fifth Amended Complaint added that the dog-care hours occurred at Sergeant Jezsek’s residence, were outside his regularly scheduled 171 hours, and included tasks such as feeding, walking, cleaning up after, exercising or training, taking the dog to the veterinarian, grooming, and washing the dog. The proposed complaint also alleged a 28-day period in which he worked 204 assigned hours and received overtime for those assigned hours. The court determined that, taken together, these allegations made it plausible that he also worked additional hours for which he was not paid overtime.

Ruling and effect

Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the City’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. This was a pleading ruling, meaning the court decided that the complaint’s allegations were insufficient, not that the plaintiffs had lost after a decision on the underlying wage evidence. The court granted the dismissal without prejudice to plaintiffs filing their Fifth Amended Complaint within ten days.

The court permitted plaintiffs to amend despite their earlier amendments because most of the prior complaints had mainly added plaintiffs, the case had been tested through only one earlier motion, and plaintiffs had made good-faith efforts to address the identified problems. The court also noted that the City had not shown undue delay, unfair prejudice, or that the proposed amendment would be futile. The court did not grant plaintiffs permission to file transcripts of prior testimony with the Fifth Amended Complaint.